Monsanto ordered to pay $289 million in world's first Roundup cancer trial

[rooster59]

Monsanto ordered to pay $289 million in world's first Roundup cancer trial

By Tina Bellon

 

FILE PHOTO: Monsanto Co's Roundup is shown for sale in Encinitas, California, U.S., June 26, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Blake/File Photo

 

(Reuters) - A California jury on Friday found Monsanto liable in a lawsuit filed by a man who alleged the company's glyphosate-based weed-killers, including Roundup, caused his cancer and ordered the company to pay $289 million in damages.

 

The case of school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson was the first lawsuit to go to trial alleging glyphosate causes cancer.

Monsanto, a unit of Bayer AG following a $62.5 billion acquisition by the German conglomerate, faces more than 5,000 similar lawsuits across the United States.

 

The jury at San Francisco's Superior Court of California deliberated for three days before finding that Monsanto had failed to warn Johnson and other consumers of the cancer risks posed by its weed killers.

 

It awarded $39 million in compensatory and $250 million in punitive damages.

 

Monsanto in a statement said it would appeal the verdict. "Today’s decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews...support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer," the company said.

 

Monsanto denies that glyphosate, the world's most widely used herbicide, causes cancer and says decades of scientific studies have shown the chemical to be safe for human use.

 

Johnson's case, filed in 2016, was fast-tracked for trial due to the severity of his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph system that he alleges was caused by Roundup and Ranger Pro, another Monsanto glyphosate herbicide. Johnson's doctors said he is unlikely to live past 2020.

 

A former pest control manager for a California county school system, Johnson, 46, applied the weed killer up to 30 times per year.

 

Brent Wisner, a lawyer for Johnson, in a statement said jurors for the first time had seen internal company documents "proving that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup could cause cancer." He called on Monsanto to "put consumer safety first over profits."

 

Over the course of the four-week trial, jurors heard testimony by statisticians, doctors, public health researchers and epidemiologists who disagreed on whether glyphosate can cause cancer.

 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in September 2017 concluded a decades-long assessment of glyphosate risks and found the chemical not likely carcinogenic to humans. But the World Health Organization's cancer arm in 2015 classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans."

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-08-11

[attrayant]

This is worse than the Johnson & Johnson’s verdict. 800 studies finding no link to cancer, but the jury votes their emotions. I hope it gets reversed on appeal.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, attrayant said:

This is worse than the Johnson & Johnson’s verdict. 800 studies finding no link to cancer, but the jury votes their emotions. I hope it gets reversed on appeal.

The trial revealed Monsanto’s internal correspondence recognizing cancer risks and systematic efforts to influence research.

[Topdoc]

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

the German conglomerate, faces more than 5,000 similar lawsuits across the United States.

A timely sale to Bayer AG!

[attrayant]

Nether of which point to causation.

We see lots of words like ‘could’ or ‘might’. No matter what kind of seemingly incriminating language turns up in emails, is there any actual evidence that glyphosate causes cancer? No. The science is pretty clear that no such link exists.

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Nether of which point to causation.

We see lots of words like ‘could’ or ‘might’. No matter what kind of seemingly incriminating language turns up in emails, is there any actual evidence that glyphosate causes cancer? No. The science is pretty clear that no such link exists.

The ‘science’ has been influenced by Monsanto’s systematic efforts to influence the ‘Science’.

[Topdoc]

"Additional adjuvants were used to quickly break down cell walls and collapse the plant. These chemicals originally included sodium sulfite with a later change to oxalic acid (oxalate) as patented in 2006."

US Patent number 6,992,045 B2, Monsanto Technology LLC, Jan.31. 2006

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392553/ 

 

 

[attrayant]

Do you think all 800 of those studies were industry funded? Monsanto isn't the only firm that has studied this.  Here is the Agricultural Health Study, the most comprehensive study to date looking at farmer exposure to glyphosate:

 

Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study

 

CONCLUSIONS:

In this large, prospective cohort study, no association was apparent between glyphosate and any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies overall, including NHL and its subtypes. There was some evidence of increased risk of AML among the highest exposed group that requires confirmation.

 

Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept that all 800+ of those studies are somehow flawed and we find some 'suggestive' statements in company emails, what scientific evidence did the jury use to establish causation sufficient to justify a $289M award?

 

Glyphosate is the most popular herbicide in the world.  That's a huge amount of observational data.  Where are all the cancer victims?

[whatsupdoc]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept that all 800+ of those studies are somehow flawed and we find some 'suggestive' statements in company emails, what scientific evidence did the jury use to establish causation sufficient to justify a $289M award?

 

Glyphosate is the most popular herbicide in the world.  That's a huge amount of observational data.  Where are all the cancer victims?

Correct, there is controversy about whether glyphosate can cause cancer or not. Large statistical analysis might give a clue but it is impossible to say for certain that Roundup caused the cancer of the groundskeeper.

[Chomper Higgot]

The verdict is Monsanto failed to warn the plaintiff of the cancer risk associated with the product.

 

I hope nobody here is arguing there is Zero risk of cancer from Glyphosate?!

 

—— 

For the record I do not knowingly own stocks in Monsanto or have any financial interest in the company or its products.

[whatsupdoc]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The verdict is Monsanto failed to warn the plaintiff of the cancer risk associated with the product.

 

I hope nobody here is arguing there is Zero risk of cancer from Glyphosate?!

 

—— 

For the record I do not knowingly own stocks in Monsanto or have any financial interest in the company or its products.

I understand your point but I suppose anyone working with a weed killer should assume the stuff might be bad for your health and take the necessary precautions. Common sense really. And if you get cancer you can never know for sure what caused it.

This trial is typical for the USA and the appeal will lead to a very different verdict.

 

By the way, glyphosate blocks an amino acid synthesis pathway in plants, but in humans that same biochemical pathway does not exist. Obviously, that does not exclude the possibility of glyphosate having undesirable side effects in humans.

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

I understand your point but I suppose anyone working with a weed killer should assume the stuff might be bad for your health and take the necessary precautions. Common sense really. And if you get cancer you can never know for sure what caused it.

This trial is typical for the USA and the appeal will lead to a very different verdict.

 

By the way, glyphosate blocks an amino acid synthesis pathway in plants, but in humans that same biochemical pathway does not exist. Obviously, that does not exclude the possibility of glyphosate having undesirable side effects in humans.

Perhaps the ‘Common Sense’ issue is providing a warning.

[peperobi]

Read it well Thai peoples, can be a good possibility to let this company pay for all the disease derive from using (legally) their products here in Thailand!

[whatsupdoc]

53 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps the ‘Common Sense’ issue is providing a warning.

I occasionally use glyphosate here in Thailand and there are certainly warnings on the bottle (using gloves etc).

 

You cannot warn for everything; too much salt or water will also kill you. Whether or not some substance could lead to cancer is dependent on dosage, exposure and many more factors (sometimes just bad luck).

 

Edit: the glyphosate I use is not from Monsanto, but local Thai.

[attrayant]

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The verdict is Monsanto failed to warn the plaintiff of the cancer risk associated with the product.

 

But said cancer risk has not been established.  

 

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I hope nobody here is arguing there is Zero risk of cancer from Glyphosate?!

 

"Zero risk from Glyphosate" is a far cry from "Glyphosate caused my (but strangely, nobody else's) lymphoma".  By the way, lymphoma is a very slow-growing cancer that typically takes 5-10 years or more to develop to the point where it causes symptoms.  The plaintiff had been using the herbicide for just two years.

 

If the IARC can be believed, Glyphosate is as hazardous as deep frying, drinking coffee or eating red meat.  It's LESS hazardous than alcoholic beverages or eating processed meat.  Where are the hazard warnings for all of these products?  This decision seems to open up the floodgates for lawsuits against bacon manufacturers and Napa Valley for all the cancer-causing products they send to market without cancer warning labels.

 

 

[ubonjoe]

A post contains a link to YouTube video not in English has been removed.

Forum Rule

Quote

English is the only acceptable language anywhere on ThaiVisa including Classifieds, except within the Thai language forum, where of course using Thai is allowed.

 

[rosst]

4 hours ago, whatsupdoc said:

Correct, there is controversy about whether glyphosate can cause cancer or not. Large statistical analysis might give a clue but it is impossible to say for certain that Roundup caused the cancer of the groundskeeper.

I believe that there is currently no definite link but caution when using is paramount.  This is not to say that at a later date it may be established. 

These trials and monstrous payouts need to be explained and documentary proof required prior to the payment. 

I am no friend of Monsanto who has sold out and taken their profit, Bayer may rue the purchase of this time bomb. 

[Redline]

For some reason the Thai version seems just fine ? maybe they will change their minds 

[geriatrickid]

The only people who will make money on this are the lawyers.

It will now go to appeal and I predict the  award will be reversed. That should be  2-5 years.

Then, that appeal will be appealed. Perhaps another 2 years.

By that time, the plaintiff, grounds keeper DeWayne will be dead.

[attrayant]

Just now, geriatrickid said:

The only people who will make money on this are the lawyers.  It will now go to appeal and I predict the  award will be reversed. That should be  2-5 years.  Then, that appeal will be appealed. Perhaps another 2 years.  By that time, the plaintiff, grounds keeper DeWayne will be dead.

 

Too bad he won't be able to sue his lawyers for taking advantage of him.

[Zack61]

I call it kharma

[Wake Up]

Smoking was apparently not harmful either for many many years according to Philip Morris. Yet Philip Morris internally knew smoking caused cancer and was addictive.

 

The jury in this case saw internal records of Monsanto stating that their product probably caused cancer. That is the reason for the punishment damages of 250 million. 

 

This product should be banned as it is not safe for humans to use. Will not cause cancer for every human but not worth the risk IMO and the opinion of the World Health Organization and Monsanto’s own secret internal documents. 

[attrayant]

I was hoping this discussion was over, but then this happened:

 

3 hours ago, Wake Up said:

Smoking was apparently not harmful either for many many years according to Philip Morris. Yet Philip Morris internally knew smoking caused cancer and was addictive.

 

This is a total non-sequitur and has nothing to do with the topic.  Just as a reminder, within the past year or two juries have decided that:

 

• Talc causes cancer
• WiFi causes cancer
• Vaccines cause sudden infant death syndrome
• Glyphosate causes cancer
• Glyphosate doesn't cause cancer (this ruling prompted California to remove Glyphosate from its notorious prop-65 "known to the state of California to cause cancer" list)

 

Despite what the scientific evidence says.  Judges and juries are not scientific bodies, and don't determine scientific facts.

 

3 hours ago, Wake Up said:

The jury in this case saw internal records of Monsanto stating that their product probably caused cancer. That is the reason for the punishment damages of 250 million.

 

None of the emails I've seen are evidential.  They're all talking about PR and damage control, often in a ham-handed way but that's not evidence of guilt.  The ghostwriting incident was stupid and embarrassing, but still does not mean Glyphosate is carcinogenic.  If you can show me some secret Monsanto email where a senior executive or scientist is admitting a known carcinogenic affect (not simply fearing one, but actually admitting it), and then saying "how can we hide this?", maybe I'll change my mind.  But all the emails I can find say nothing like that.  

 

3 hours ago, Wake Up said:

This product should be banned as it is not safe for humans to use. Will not cause cancer for every human but not worth the risk IMO and the opinion of the World Health Organization and Monsanto’s own secret internal documents. 

 

You make these bold statements without considering historical context.  Do you have any idea what kind of toxic, nay outright poisonous pesticides were made obsolete by Glyphosate?  How about bromoxynil, DDT and ureas that will burn the hell out of everything they touch?  Here's a chart from a USDA pesticide report  showing how much Glyphosate has changed the pesticide landscape since its introduction.  Look at this and then tell me you want to go back to 1968:

 

 

As for your statement "not safe for humans to use", pretty much every major regulatory & scientific body in the world disagrees with you.  Even the WHO has issued a statement tempering the IARC's misguided Glyphosate monograph:

 

Glyphosate has been extensively tested for genotoxic effects using a variety of tests in a wide range of organisms. The overall weight of evidence indicates that administration of glyphosate and its formulation products at doses as high as 2000 mg/kg body weight by the oral route, the route most relevant to human dietary exposure, was not associated with genotoxic effects in an overwhelming majority of studies conducted in mammals, a model considered to be appropriate for assessing genotoxic risks to humans. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures.

 

[...]

 

In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.

 

This joint UN/WHO statement is consistent with every other regulatory agency in the world. No regulatory agency in the world considers glyphosate to be carcinogenic.

Even the ban-happy ESFA has come out in support of Glyphosate, and this was after reviewing the 'Monsanto Papers' controversy:

 

EFSA – in line with the scientific opinion of 27 out of 28 Member State experts – concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans. This conclusion represented a divergence with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which in March 2015 classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans.

 

Finally, if you're going to get all ban-happy about an herbicide for which there is scant evidence of carcinogenicity and is less acutely toxic than apple cider vinegar, caffeine and vitamin D3, what do you say about beer, wine or bacon, which are class 1 carcinogens (definitely has a carcinogenic effect in humans) yet people consume them by the kilogram every week?

 

Finally, I've just learned that the plaintiff/victim lives in Benicia, home to an oil refinery that has paid fines for the illegal disposal of benzene. People who live around benzene emitting refineries have high rates of cancer, especially NHL, the kind the plaintiff has.

http://beniciaindependent.com/topics/benzene-emissions/

https://www.medicaldaily.com/high-cancer-rates-areas-near...

If the defense didn’t raise this point at the trial, their lawyers should be fired.

[AsianAtHeart]

Perhaps attrayant has some ties to Monsanto.  Monsanto, from what I have heard, has never had the best ethics in terms of its business practices.  For example, I heard farmers complain that Monsanto has sued farmers whose non-Monsanto crops had been cross-pollinated with Monsanto's patented GMO crops next door--for royalties, of course.  (No, I don't have this in writing, and, while to me it was from the horses' mouths, to the rest of you it is now just hearsay.)

 

I sure hope Thailand never buys into Monsanto's rice.  It will be a huge blow, economically, to Thailand if they do--though, granted, it would be a huge boon to Monsanto.

 

As for the way "science" is done these days, it's usually via sponsorship by the company whose interest is at stake.  They pay a "third party" to do "unbiased" research, and once the study is completed, the payer (the company) owns the copyright on it.  They can hire 20 studies to be done, and then choose to publish only the single study that came out in their favor.  They have no obligation to publish the negative results, at least, no legal obligation--ethical is another matter.  So regardless of the number of studies proving the supposed safety of glyphosate, to me it remains highly suspect.

 

According to Wilson (2016), in an article titled Scientific Regress, the Open Science Collaboration did a large study attempting to replicate the results of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies--and found that a shocking 65% of them could not be replicated.  (See the full article here: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress .)  As Wilson so aptly states in his opening line, "the problem with science is that so much of it simply isn’t" (2016, p. 37).

[pacovl46]

On 8/11/2018 at 7:00 AM, attrayant said:

This is worse than the Johnson & Johnson’s verdict. 800 studies finding no link to cancer, but the jury votes their emotions. I hope it gets reversed on appeal.

https://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-and-environment/environmental-policy/dangers-of-glyphosate-herbicide-zmgz13onzsto

 

https://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/hazards-of-worlds-most-common-herbicide-zmaz05onzsel

[pacovl46]

I’ve seen a documentary a few years ago on German TV about a pig farmer in the Netherlands whose sows all of a sudden started giving birth to a lot more of deformed and/or dead piglets than they would normally have.

 

Then he was approached by a TV team to go with them to a South American country, I forgot which one, and so he did. Once there they showed him pictures of deformed and stillborn children the population of that village started to suffer from a few years ago. He said that nothing he sees in the photos of those children he hasn’t already seen in his piglets.

 

The only common denominator of his pig farm and the village in that South American country is the usage of glyphosate which began a couple of years earlier.. In case of the village they were using planes to dust the crops right next to a school building. 

 

 

[attrayant]

15 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Perhaps attrayant has some ties to Monsanto.

 

Of course, when all else fails, fall back onto conspiracy theories and accuse people of being paid shills.  

 

15 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Monsanto, from what I have heard, has never had the best ethics in terms of its business practices.  For example, I heard farmers complain that Monsanto has sued farmers whose non-Monsanto crops had been cross-pollinated with Monsanto's patented GMO crops next door--for royalties, of course.  (No, I don't have this in writing, and, while to me it was from the horses' mouths, to the rest of you it is now just hearsay.)

 

It's a common myth.  There was one lawsuit that got attention, and the farmer admitted to saving his seeds for replanting, in violation of his contract.  Accidental seeding of neighboring fields is not litigated.  I dare you to prove me wrong.

 

15 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

I sure hope Thailand never buys into Monsanto's rice.

 

What rice is this, exactly?  According to you, I'm supposed to have some insider connections to Monsanto but I don't know of any "Monsanto Rice", and I don't see it in their crop seed listing.  Seems your connection to Monsanto is better than mine.  Tell me more about this mysterious Monsanto Rice.

 

 

15 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

As for the way "science" is done these days, it's usually via sponsorship by the company whose interest is at stake.

 

No, that's not the way it's "usually" done.  Research is sometimes sponsored by corporate interests, such as Pharma sponsoring a vaccine study.  This only makes sense.  If you're a big Agri-Corp and your products are going to be used on the global food supply, you know you'll face global regulatory scrutiny.  So of course you want to do your own studies first to make sure everything's good.  Do you really expect a company to say "Here's this new pesticide we made.  We haven't done any testing, but it's probably okay to spray on your food".  Yeah, that would go over really well.

 

And governments follow up with their own studies to confirm said results.  I know my previous post was long and maybe contained too many uncomfortable facts, but let's repeat the important part:  No regulatory agency in the world considers glyphosate to be carcinogenic.  That's not based on Monsanto-only studies.

 

And as for your links to "Mother Earth News", I can pretty much guess what their opinion is.  I might watch them later for some laffs if I have nothing better to do.  Instead, why don't you make some statements of fact and back them up with science instead of opinion from Mother Earth News?

 

The people who want Glyphosate banned have no idea what would happen if their wish came true.

 

[whatsupdoc]

24 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

I’ve seen a documentary a few years ago on German TV about a pig farmer in the Netherlands whose sows all of a sudden started giving birth to a lot more of deformed and/or dead piglets than they would normally have.

 

Then he was approached by a TV team to go with them to a South American country, I forgot which one, and so he did. Once there they showed him pictures of deformed and stillborn children the population of that village started to suffer from a few years ago. He said that nothing he sees in the photos of those children he hasn’t already seen in his piglets.

 

The only common denominator of his pig farm and the village in that South American country is the usage of glyphosate which began a couple of years earlier.. In case of the village they were using planes to dust the crops right next to a school building. 

 

 

Nice story but absolutely no scientific proof. Far from it.

Glyphosate is so widely used that it is relatively easy to do proper scientific research about the effects or lack of them. And I have no doubt this has been done many times already.

 

It is easy to say let's get rid of glyphosate, but like Attrayant already mentioned, you do have to consider the alternative as well. I am afraid the alternatives for glyphosate are not an improvement.

[attrayant]

And I'm still trudging through the court documents and exhibits that are all posted on the ambulance chaser's web site.  I found this one interesting:
 

 

The plaintiff's cancer started somewhere in the mid-2000s, and he started his grounds-keeping job in 2012.  What the hell was this jury thinking?

 

Then again, we should remember that a California jury found OJ Simpson not guilty.

 

[Credo]

Without getting into the fray about this chemical other than to say most pesticides come with risks, Roundup is one of the only herbicides which works on a very, very nasty weed, Leafy Spurge, which infected large portions of the Western US.   Leafy Spurge was an accidental import from Germany, I believe, and has no natural enemies in the US.   Nothing eats it and it has very deep roots.   It caused some areas to be condemned.    In some places it was mandatory to spray for it.